Message Board Archives

Should NEVER be UNDERRATED AGAIN.


In 34 test matches he has a better BATTING AND BOWLING RECORD THAN SIR CARL HOOPER at this stage DESPITE the LATTER HAVING MORE TALENT.

Shut up talk about Shai Hope who you stated was the second coming..

In reply to Dukes

Roston Chase is a SOLID cricketer....test class...very likeable....carry himself well.

In reply to allan

Clearly you have me confused with somebody else.
Shai Hope has been very disappointing in test cricket.

In reply to Dukes
The comparison is to CARL HOOPER?
That's a low hanging fruit!!

In reply to jacksprat

SIR Carl

Excellent fifty

In reply to Dukes

ah hem

In reply to jacksprat

Low Hanging fruit?

How many all-rounders have the WI produced with 5,000 runs and 100 wickets and 100 catches in both test and ODI cricket.

Mr. Dependable gone. Bowled Woakes, hoat-mouted by Dukesie.

In reply to Trinidave

Inside edge

In reply to Dukes

How many other mediocre West Indies "allrounders" were afforded the 100+ tests like Hooper? You will find that Hooper has perhaps the lowest batting average of among all test batsmen with at least 5000 runs. That was only possible playing for West Indies because he was part of the mediocrity choking West Indies cricket for years.

Those 5000 runs and 100 wickets was more the function of longevity, than anything else! Hooper was a putative batsman and part time bowler- he was no allrounder. In fact, Hooper barely averaged 1 wicket per test!

Even a Jimmy Adams, if he had been indulged for the the same 100-plus tests as Hooper, would have achieved similar, if not better figures, considering he had a superior batting average to Hooper and the same mediocre, near 50 runs, bowling average.

In reply to jacksprat

NONE.

Care to hazard a guess why?

In reply to Dukes

Let me hazard a guess: Because for years HOOPER WAS INDULGED, despite his protracted failure, like no other?

He benefited from West Indies culture of mediocrity like no other!In any other era, few players, with his history of mediocrity, would have been indulged for 100+ test

Give a Chris Gayle - no "allrounder", either- the same amount of overs like Hooper and I am sure he could easily have eclipsed Hooper's 1 wicket per test to also claim 100 test wickets.

In reply to Dukes

Royston is a sure pick in the team.

In reply to powen001

It so good to see a cricketer get the work done, with little fanfare.
He has been under-rated for so long.

In reply to jacksprat

So Hooper is the only West Indian to benefit from this culture of mediocrity???

Now look at 2 former ENGLAND CAPTAINS. Mike Atherton and Nasser Hussein.
Atherton after 115 tests averages 37.70 with a scoring rate of 37.32
Hussein after 96 tests averages 37.19 with a scoring rate of 40.39
Hooper after 102 tests averages 36.47 with a scoring rate of 50.27

Now Hooper took 114 test wickets while Atherton took 2 test wickets and Hussein none.

In reply to openning

he is what he is, a decent cricketer

In reply to Dukes

You really like to fool around with statistics. Nobody ever called Atherton or Hussein great.

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

And who is calling Hooper great?????

In reply to Dukes

Concurring that Chase is a formidable all-rounder and a very dependable cricketer.

In reply to Dukes

Nuff people on this bored mainly gwuyanese

In reply to jacksprat

Man cuss me off last week for making same point.

Hooper got 100 tests to take little over 100 wickets, 1 per match.

Hooper was tres ordinaire.....

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

They have been seduced by Hooper's beauty.How could you put that on Guyanese,when it is your countrymen who knighted him!!!!!!!

In reply to Slipfeeler

Chase is a decent all-rounder.
Holder is a formidable all-rounder

In reply to methodic

And Hooper was no all-rounder.

Carl Hooper was an all-rounder in the same way Darren Sammy was an allrounder- the epitome of mediocrity and an insult to the appellation!

In reply to Dukes

.

No one would cite either Atherton or Hussein as some sort of benchmark for accomplishment in test cricket. Moreover, I do not really care how England indulges her mediocre players.



Show me another WEST INDIAN- "all-rounder" or otherwise-with Hooper's career-long mediocrity who was allowed to play 100 tests!

He benefited from that culture of mediocrity - Like No Other

In reply to jacksprat

OK,you have defined Hooper,Atherton and Hussein as MEDIOCRE test batsmen.
Is Marlon Samuels A MEDIOCRE TEST BATSMAN???

In reply to allan

now that you can't replace Chase with Cornwall, Hope becomes the target, tell you what Hope looks the best of the batsmen we have, sooner or later he will make a lot of runs!

In reply to jacksprat

You are implying the Carl Hooper was useless as a WI player and should never have played 100 Tests, ODIs. I beg to differ and would challenge you to find a player that should have replaced him. Please don't list a one dimensional player.
If Hooper was no good why did both Richards & Richardson pick repeatedly, even his contemporary Lara had to have in his team.

In reply to openning

Funny enough...

From age 14 when I first met him...He was always passionate and determined to make Cricket his career.

He has never faltered on his work ethic and attitude so it has always been easy to support him.

They wanted more today but alas- The Pitch and the new Ball is misbehaving....


The Real JOB will be to chase..pardon the pun while not taking wild risks.

I suspect Blackwood may be given his passport to swing tomorrow ...

stay tuned.

In reply to Dukes

Jockstrap are you there?

In reply to Dukes

Indeed,Marlon Samuels is a mediocre test batsman; in fact, perhaps even more mediocre than Hooper. I have no qualms in saying that he too was a beneficiary of West Indies' latter day culture of mediocrity. The fact that both played so many tests between them, given their respective stats, underscores my point about the prevailing acceptance of mediocrity in West Indies cricket.

I will reiterate: No test batsman with a career 30+ average should ever be held up a benchmark of achievement.

In reply to jacksprat

In modern era less than 50 avg is mediocre. It is the standard set by modern era great cricketers, but you guys still live in cave age mediocrity of 20,30 and 40 averages and call those cave age skunts as great cricketers. They are not even good enough to tie the shoe lace of modern era genius cricketers.

In reply to bolls

Can you post the top fifty players, with a 50 avg in any format.

Chase is a good cricketer and good to have in the team

Has a specific role and doesn’t try to do anything out of that role. Plays within his limitations which is exactly what is required for his role in the tream


To categorize Hooper as an allrounder is not fair to Hooper

He was used by Lloyd when his fast bowlers needed to rest

On many occasions, he was forced to bowl many overs. You bowl enough overs, you WILL get wickets.

IHoopers j b wiling average and even more significantly, his bowling strike rate fell you all you need to know about his bowling

With all of that...he certainly overachieved in the bowling department.

Chase is a much better bowler than Hooper ever was.

In reply to camos

Forking bullshite argument.

Don't matter how good the batsmen look if we all out for 100!!

Eventually scoring runs means we lose many matches in the hopes of eventually scoring.

In reply to imusic

REALLY???????????

seriously I can't believe someone could defend Lloyd's lack of belief in spin bowling.

In reply to Raggs

Is the above in response to what is below?